Australia and New Zealand vs Ecuador: FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Female — Value

Australia and New Zealand
874.16 1000 No
in 2023
Ecuador
913.34 1000 No
in 2023
Australia and New Zealand rank
32nd
Ecuador rank
31st

FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Female — Value over time

  • Australia and New Zealand
  • Ecuador
02004006008001.0k200020112023

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 913.34 1000 No against 874.16 1000 No in Australia and New Zealand, a difference of 39.18 1000 No.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 24 shared years of data; in 2000 it was Australia and New Zealand ahead.

Australia and New Zealand ranks 32nd and Ecuador ranks 31st of 125 countries.

Across the 3 decades both report, Australia and New Zealand averaged higher in 2 and Ecuador in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia and New Zealand Ecuador Difference Ahead
2000s 781.47 1000 No 498.81 1000 No 282.66 1000 No Australia and New Zealand
2010s 827.06 1000 No 694.31 1000 No 132.75 1000 No Australia and New Zealand
2020s 874.35 1000 No 875.65 1000 No 1.3 1000 No Ecuador

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher fao model — total non-agricultural afs employment — female — value, Australia and New Zealand or Ecuador?
Ecuador, at 913.34 1000 No against 874.16 1000 No in Australia and New Zealand as of 2023.
What is the difference in fao model — total non-agricultural afs employment — female — value between Australia and New Zealand and Ecuador?
39.18 1000 No, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and New Zealand and Ecuador?
24 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2023.
How do Australia and New Zealand and Ecuador rank globally for fao model — total non-agricultural afs employment — female — value?
Australia and New Zealand ranks 32nd and Ecuador ranks 31st of 125 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Female — Value. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Australia and New Zealand vs Ecuador: FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Female — Value. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 16 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/fao-model-total-non-agricultural-afs-employment-female-value/australia-and-new-zealand/ecuador/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/fao-model-total-non-agricultural-afs-employment-female-value/australia-and-new-zealand/ecuador/">Australia and New Zealand vs Ecuador: FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Female — Value</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Female — Value
Unit
1000 No
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
171 places, 3,932 data points, 2000–2023
Last refreshed

The FAOSTAT Employment indicators domain focuses on indicators related to employment in agrifood systems and rural areas. The update is performed yearly, using data from the International Labour Organization (ILO) database that contains a rich set of indicators from a wide range of topics related to labour statistics. The indicators published in FAOSTAT are derived from the labour force statistics (LFS) and rural and urban labour markets (RURURB) databases of the ILOSTAT database. In addition, the ILO modelled estimates and projections (ILOEST) are used to provide information on employment in agriculture. FAOSTAT also publishes indicators on employment in agrifood systems (AFS) from 2000 at the national, regional, and global levels, using a methodology developed by the FAO to estimate the number of people employed within these systems.